Upset of the century? Plucky, untalented system QB defeats undisputed GOAT

[Deus Irae]

And I’m not sure why you’ve brought Roethlisberger into the discussion when I didn’t mention him.

That's the point. Roethlisberger has a better playoff record than Manning, and has won as many Super Bowls, yet you completely ignored him.

And you're the one who pointed to playoff records as a measurement of greatness, claiming it spoke for itself, which is asinine. George Allen had a 2-7 record in the playoffs, yet he's a Hall of Fame coach.

 

[1960Pats]

Just curious: why do you think I overlooked that?

Post 2006, Manning was deadly in comebacks. Marino was a comeback king.

In both cases the comebacks were only in the regular season. In the playoffs they were both sub par, in spite of their talent.

In the case of Rodgers he doesn't have the comebacks or the great playoffs.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

That's the point. Roethlisberger has a better playoff record than Manning, and has won as many Super Bowls, yet you completely ignored him.

And you're the one who pointed to playoff records as a measurement of greatness, claiming it spoke for itself, which is asinine. George Allen had a 2-7 record in the playoffs, yet he's a Hall of Fame coach.

First of all, I just gave a few examples of QBs who I think should be in the top 10, certainly over Steve Young who has a 10-8 playoff record and doesn’t have the stats to match Manning, Favre, Marino or Elway. Second, and as I mentioned above, playoff records are more important for determining greatness of HCs. There are tons of metrics that can be used to assess QBs but for HCs, not so much. I will give you that Rodgers may not be a top 5 QB, but my point was McCarthy should have had greater success with Rodgers as QB.

Anyway, I am moving on...

 

[1960Pats]

That's the point. Roethlisberger has a better playoff record than Manning, and has won as many Super Bowls, yet you completely ignored him.

And you're the one who pointed to playoff records as a measurement of greatness, claiming it spoke for itself, which is asinine. George Allen had a 2-7 record in the playoffs, yet he's a Hall of Fame coach.

One of the things that I believe gets overlooked when we discuss QBs is who did they have to get by to succeed. IOW, how many losses for AFC QBs like Roethlisberger and Manning came at the hands of Tom Brady?

 

[Deus Irae]

First of all, I just gave a few examples of QBs who I think should be in the top 10, certainly over Steve Young who has a 10-8 playoff record and doesn’t have the stats to match Manning, Favre, Marino or Elway. Second, and as I mentioned above, playoff records are more important for determining greatness of HCs. There are tons of metrics that can be used to assess QBs but for HCs, not so much. I will give you that Rodgers may not be a top 5 QB, but my point was McCarthy should have had greater success with Rodgers as QB.

Anyway, I am moving on...

You should move on. Your arguments on this are a joke.

 

[Deus Irae]

One of the things that I believe gets overlooked when we discuss QBs is who did they have to get by to succeed. IOW, how many losses for AFC QBs like Roethlisberger and Manning came at the hands of Tom Brady?

I agree with your point, and I'd take it a step further. I'd apply that to any position or role who gets evaluated by wins, and I'd look at the regular season as well as the playoffs. The NFCE in the 80's was generally home to better teams than it is today, for example. And the same sort of logic should apply in other areas (awards, for example), as well.

It's not that it is dispositive, but it should at least be looked at as part of the picture.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

You should move on. Your arguments on this are a joke.

Sure, I’m not getting anything out of it other than it’s ok to use the same criteria to compare QBs and HCs according to you (comparing apples to oranges but whatever).

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure, I’m not getting anything out of it other than it’s ok to use the same criteria to compare QBs and HCs according to you (comparing apples to oranges but whatever).

It's not my fault that you have no point beyond "but Touchdownwire!", and can't be bothered to actually think out your notions well enough to defend them on this subject. Maybe you should use that "disagree" icon more, as you seem to think that was a powerful argument.

I mean, you're being silly enough to disregard Young on the basis of stats when the reason his stats are what they are is that he spent a great deal of his NFL career backing up the QB that Brady eventually displaced as the G.O.A.T.. FYI: Staubach suffers from a similar stats issue, because his military service meant that he didn't enter the NFL until he was 27, but he went to 5 Super Bowls in 11 years, and was the starter in 4 of them.

 

[upstater1]

In both cases the comebacks were only in the regular season. In the playoffs they were both sub par, in spite of their talent.

In the case of Rodgers he doesn't have the comebacks or the great playoffs.

I seem to remember some Manning playoff comebacks. One is indelible in my mind.

 

[1960Pats]

I seem to remember some Manning playoff comebacks. One is indelible in my mind.

I'm not saying he didn't have any, but 9 one and done playoffs says a lot. Not to mention that the comeback vs the Pats that you're thinking about was assisted by bogus PI calls. Two of those are indelible in my mind.

 

[captain stone]

Media's rules on this: Rogers wins, Rodgers = G.O.A.T.

Sorry, but that's what the setup was. Frankly, it was disrespectful to a lot of other great QBs who should be ahead of Rodgers on any all-time list, including the fairly-recently-retired Peyton Manning.

Is Rodgers a top 30 all-time QB? Probably
Is Rodgers a top 20 all-time QB? Maybe
Is Rodgers a top 10 all-time QB? No

Rodgers (& Brees) > The Horse-Faced Goober.